Re: [boost] Re: Announcing: xpressive

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-17 19:42:50

Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> James Curran wrote:

>>     Would it be possible to have the dynamically bound syntax the same as
>> the statically bound?  (I'm assuming that the S-bound syntax in limited by
>> externals -- notably which  C++ operators can be overloaded -- but the
>> D-bound syntax could be anything.   I also assume that the difference was so
>> at least one could match other RE syntaxes, but if I'm going to have to
>> learn another syntax, it might as well be consistent throughout the domain.)
>> 
>> 
> 
> I had the same thought!  Your assumptions are correct -- I want to
> provide something familier and I don't want to constrain the dynamic
> syntax by the limitations of the static syntax.  But the nice thing
> about the current design is that it imposes no constraints on the
> dynamic parser.  Look again at the example:

[snip]

I guess a question I'm more interested with is: is there an advantage
in terms of speed with the statically bound vs. the dynamic bound scheme?
If yes, then how much? If none, why bother with ETs? Also, what types of 
expressions can't the static syntax express and why. Or is it just a matter
of diverging from the original ubiquitous RE syntax? Finally, can we combine 
the two schemes?

Cheers,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net